Basic question - no one has the answer?

Hi,

I know the difference between char and varchar but there is conflicting advice from professionals about which one to use. In the case of a customer table (name of company, address etc) some professionals say use char because it will only occupy x amount of space and therefore querys will run faster because sql server does not need to check the length of each field. Others say use varchar because then there is no wasted space (seems obvious).

Could anyone give me a description of why one is prefered over another?

Thanks,

MarkSpeed will be required more for data path access...anything else is probably inconsequental...

Sorry, still didn't give you an answer...

But all development I've ever seen usually uses varchar...but I probably wouldn't say varchar(5) or something...

All of Oracle is varchar2...except char(1)

BOL was of no help...

I'll give it a google...|||http://p2p.wrox.com/archive/sql_server/2001-04/101.asp

Says almost the same thing...

you can test it though...load up 2 identical tables and do some metrics

If you're selecting lots of data it may be a problem...but you should use bcp in that case anyway.|||Here check this site out...

It's a research team the paired up with MS. They use SQL Server..

anyway, they are mapping the entire nights sky.. I think they claim the database to be at 888GB right now...

The even let you see their catalog on line...seems everything is varchar

have a look

http://skyserver.sdss.org/en/help/browser/browser.asp|||Ok Brett,

Thanks for the help and advice. You mentioned metrics. Do you know of any free software that can give performance metrics for sql?

Many thanks,

Mark

Originally posted by Brett Kaiser
Speed will be required more for data path access...anything else is probably inconsequental...

Sorry, still didn't give you an answer...

But all development I've ever seen usually uses varchar...but I probably wouldn't say varchar(5) or something...

All of Oracle is varchar2...except char(1)

BOL was of no help...

I'll give it a google...|||Yeah,

SQL Server itself...

Build 2 tables that are identical except for the datatype differences you want to check out

Create a while loop to populate with data for n times...yiou probably want to check it out for small medium and large row sets.

Create a set of sql scripts to access the data in different ways and manners..

set show stats and show plans in QA

Start a trace with profiler...

execute the 2 scripts in two different windows...

do them seaparately at first..then run them against each other...

Si?|||Ok Brett,

Thanks for the info,

Mark

Originally posted by Brett Kaiser
Yeah,

SQL Server itself...

Build 2 tables that are identical except for the datatype differences you want to check out

Create a while loop to populate with data for n times...yiou probably want to check it out for small medium and large row sets.

Create a set of sql scripts to access the data in different ways and manners..

set show stats and show plans in QA

Start a trace with profiler...

execute the 2 scripts in two different windows...

do them seaparately at first..then run them against each other...

Si?|||1 major think that to take into consideration is:

Does your column allow nullable values?

If yes, then it is better not to have it as char. Because char datatype counts null as a storage value.

e.g. if u declare char(1000) a null colum will store 1000 bytes of null data.

If any of u still haven't thought of it from this angle!|||Just my .02, if you will have to do any string manipulation, use varchar.

Depending on the type of queries you will be running, char gives a predictable placing on the 8kb data page which may result in less logical IO.

I usually use varchar unless I know there will be no nulls and it's a guaranteed length (like state abbreviations)

HTH|||Ok,

Many thanks for the advice

Originally posted by rhigdon
Just my .02, if you will have to do any string manipulation, use varchar.

Depending on the type of queries you will be running, char gives a predictable placing on the 8kb data page which may result in less logical IO.

I usually use varchar unless I know there will be no nulls and it's a guaranteed length (like state abbreviations)

HTH

Basic advice on good practise required

I have master tables that I will be updating from our ERP system. Some examples I have seen take an approach of dropping a table in SQL server then creating it again before importing; some, and probably my choice, append and update; I have not seen an example where records are all deleted then the data appended afterwards. Of the three approaches which is generally regarded as best practise / most efficient?

The create and re-load versus the delete and then append are really the same thing from a process perspective, but they will have different performance due to the overhead of data change in SQL Server. Delete is a logged operation, so incurs overhead by writing the transaction log each row that is deleted. Dropping the table is just much faster. Truncating the table would be similar to the drop. It is an non-logged, non-selective delete in effect.

As to which is faster of the two methods, re-load or partial load and update, it depends on lots of factors. The speed of extract will be constant since both methods require you to extract all data, so it will come down to the cost of inserting lots of data, lots of write activity versus the cost of comparison in trying to reduce that write to only the changes required. I cannot give answers as things like row overall row width, comparison columns and how much data needs to be moved around to do each method will impact this. Here is an article that looks at two methods of comparing tables.

Get all from Table A that isn't in Table B
(http://www.sqlis.com/311.aspx)

Another option is to just insert all data, and capture failures due to a primary key violation. Then for the failures check or updates. I did some tests of a similar approach for patching bad data, and it was generally quicker to let it fail the insert and fix afterwards that check and potentially fix all rows. This will depend on the ratio of good to bad, or in your case, new rows, old rows, old that need to be updated.

If the cost of updates is high, then you will want to check if an update is really required, or has nothing changed. The Checksum Transform can be useful for this, as comparing an integer is faster than moving and comparing 200 columns of data to detect and change. Again it depends on your data.

Checksum Transformation
(http://www.sqlis.com/21.aspx)

The thing you need to work out is where is the bottle neck in your process. It may be that the extract query or network transfer is the slowest part and it does not matter which method you use for downstream loading.

My opinion is always go for deltas if you can, but if not then delete (drop/truncate) and reload all. It can be harder with foreign keys but it is going to be faster I think.

sql

Balance Forwarding

Hi,

Just want to seek advice on how to forward the ending balance of Balance Sheet Accounts of previous year to the current year.

Marvs

You can use a couple of MDX function depending on the level you are standed.

If we have the following time heriarchie:

[DimTime].[Year-Month-Day-H] = [Year], [Month], [Day]

And assuming that the [Balance] measure is additive

1) if you drill down to the day level you can obtain the ending balance of the previous year thorugh the following MDX sentence:

(ParallelPeriod([Year],1,[Dim Time].Currentmember).Parent.Lastsibling.Lastchild, measure.[Balance])

2) If you drill down to the month level you can obtain the ending balance of the previous year like this:

(ParallelPeriod([Year],1,[Dim Time].Currentmember).Lastsibling.Lastchild, measure.[Balance])

3) If you are on the year level you can obtain the ending balance of the previous year like this:

([Dim Time].currentmember.Lag(1).Lastchild.Lastchild, measure.[Balance])

And finally you can put the three sentences in two nested iif function, like this:

Iif([DimTime].currentmember.Level.Name = "Day", <Sentence 1>,

Iif([DimTime].currentmember.Level.Name = "Month", <Sentence 2>,

<Sentence 3>))

Other ways using custom rollup formulas can be used.

Hope that helps you

Leandro

|||

What I think you are looking for is the new semi-additive measures in AS2K5, specifically the "last non-empty child" aggregation function. It is designed for balances, quantities on-hand, and a whole class of semi-additive situatons. While this is technically possible on AS2K, it involves a considerable amount of calculations and MDX to evaluate it at runtime. In AS2K5, it is a native aggregation function and performs at the same speed as sum, count, etc.

_-_-_ Dave

|||

That' right.

So the following more simple sentence could be used:

(parallelperiod([Year],1,[DimTime].currentmember), measures.[Balance])

Thanks

Backward compatibility of Backups from 2005 to 2000

Hi folks
Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
much appreciated...
Laurence
Hi
You can not restore a SQL Server 2005 backup into SQL Server 2000. The DB
structures have changed slightly.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"LaurenceT" <laurencetruman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133782233.403165.130820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
>
|||Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you can't restore a SQL 2005 database
backup to SQL 2000. As you probably already know, you can restore from 2000
to 2005, though.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"LaurenceT" <laurencetruman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133782233.403165.130820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
>
|||LaurenceT wrote:
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
You can't do that. What exactly do you want to achieve by backing up
and restoring between versions? Is this about availability or
deployment or something else? There ought to be some other solution.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP

Backward compatibility of Backups from 2005 to 2000

Hi folks
Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
much appreciated...
LaurenceHi
You can not restore a SQL Server 2005 backup into SQL Server 2000. The DB
structures have changed slightly.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"LaurenceT" <laurencetruman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133782233.403165.130820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
>|||Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you can't restore a SQL 2005 database
backup to SQL 2000. As you probably already know, you can restore from 2000
to 2005, though.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"LaurenceT" <laurencetruman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133782233.403165.130820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
>|||LaurenceT wrote:
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
You can't do that. What exactly do you want to achieve by backing up
and restoring between versions? Is this about availability or
deployment or something else? There ought to be some other solution.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

Backward compatibility of Backups from 2005 to 2000

Hi folks
Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
much appreciated...
LaurenceHi
You can not restore a SQL Server 2005 backup into SQL Server 2000. The DB
structures have changed slightly.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"LaurenceT" <laurencetruman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133782233.403165.130820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
>|||Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but you can't restore a SQL 2005 database
backup to SQL 2000. As you probably already know, you can restore from 2000
to 2005, though.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"LaurenceT" <laurencetruman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133782233.403165.130820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
>|||LaurenceT wrote:
> Hi folks
> Just need a little advice. If we backup our new SQL 2005 database using
> the SQL Server backup system might we have any issued restoring the
> database to a 2000 server? We're not planning to have any complex DTS
> or Replication jobs to deal with, so that shouldn't be an issue, but I
> wasn't sure if there might be other issues to look out for.
> much appreciated...
> Laurence
You can't do that. What exactly do you want to achieve by backing up
and restoring between versions? Is this about availability or
deployment or something else? There ought to be some other solution.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

Backups

Our current SAN capacity has just hit the wall and I need some advice. The
SAN stores our current production SQL db and the backups on another volume.
The volume that the backups for TL's and the database is on is completely
full. Can backups be sent to any server with capacity on the network or
would it be too much overhead? All the the servers are on a fibre switch
between all of the servers so I am not sure it would it would have that much
impact. Moving the backups would give us breathing room for a while until
the SAN is upgraded.Yeah you can - whether it's tolerable, doable or not is
going to depend on the size of the backups and the activity
on the network resources.
-Sue
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:09:00 -0500, "Rockn"
<Rockn@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:

>Our current SAN capacity has just hit the wall and I need some advice. The
>SAN stores our current production SQL db and the backups on another volume.
>The volume that the backups for TL's and the database is on is completely
>full. Can backups be sent to any server with capacity on the network or
>would it be too much overhead? All the the servers are on a fibre switch
>between all of the servers so I am not sure it would it would have that muc
h
>impact. Moving the backups would give us breathing room for a while until
>the SAN is upgraded.
>|||I would probably do it at it's scheduled time which is currently 12 am when
no one is on the network.
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:lgpnd29qne8ajposrnuvtuspbu4gp05t0e@.
4ax.com...
> Yeah you can - whether it's tolerable, doable or not is
> going to depend on the size of the backups and the activity
> on the network resources.
> -Sue
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:09:00 -0500, "Rockn"
> <Rockn@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
>
The[vbcol=seagreen]
volume.[vbcol=seagreen]
much[vbcol=seagreen]
>

Backups

Our current SAN capacity has just hit the wall and I need some advice. The
SAN stores our current production SQL db and the backups on another volume.
The volume that the backups for TL's and the database is on is completely
full. Can backups be sent to any server with capacity on the network or
would it be too much overhead? All the the servers are on a fibre switch
between all of the servers so I am not sure it would it would have that much
impact. Moving the backups would give us breathing room for a while until
the SAN is upgraded.Yeah you can - whether it's tolerable, doable or not is
going to depend on the size of the backups and the activity
on the network resources.
-Sue
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:09:00 -0500, "Rockn"
<Rockn@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
>Our current SAN capacity has just hit the wall and I need some advice. The
>SAN stores our current production SQL db and the backups on another volume.
>The volume that the backups for TL's and the database is on is completely
>full. Can backups be sent to any server with capacity on the network or
>would it be too much overhead? All the the servers are on a fibre switch
>between all of the servers so I am not sure it would it would have that much
>impact. Moving the backups would give us breathing room for a while until
>the SAN is upgraded.
>|||I would probably do it at it's scheduled time which is currently 12 am when
no one is on the network.
"Sue Hoegemeier" <Sue_H@.nomail.please> wrote in message
news:lgpnd29qne8ajposrnuvtuspbu4gp05t0e@.4ax.com...
> Yeah you can - whether it's tolerable, doable or not is
> going to depend on the size of the backups and the activity
> on the network resources.
> -Sue
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:09:00 -0500, "Rockn"
> <Rockn@.newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
> >Our current SAN capacity has just hit the wall and I need some advice.
The
> >SAN stores our current production SQL db and the backups on another
volume.
> >The volume that the backups for TL's and the database is on is completely
> >full. Can backups be sent to any server with capacity on the network or
> >would it be too much overhead? All the the servers are on a fibre switch
> >between all of the servers so I am not sure it would it would have that
much
> >impact. Moving the backups would give us breathing room for a while until
> >the SAN is upgraded.
> >
>

Backup to Storage Server in another domain.

I am attempting to use enterprise manager to backup databases to a
storage server in another domain and was looking for some advice.
Currently the server is running small business server so I cannot
create a trust to the storage servers domain.
I created a mapped drive when logged in as the sql service account but
this did not work.
I was thinking about making a job that used the net use command to
create the drive then running the backup script.
I was wondering if anyone else had a better solution for crossing the
domain security barrier.
Thanks!
Hi
I have my doubt that you have by EM backup database on remote computer.
BACKUP DATABASE db TO DISK =
N'\\ServerName\backup\db.BAK'
exec SRV003.master.dbo.sp_executesql N'BACKUP DATABASE pubs
to DISK =''d:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL$BELLTOWER\BACKUP\testback.bak'''
exec SRV003.master.dbo.sp_executesql
N'BACKUP DATABASE pubs to testback'
<outoftherealm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143475970.853389.244620@.u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>I am attempting to use enterprise manager to backup databases to a
> storage server in another domain and was looking for some advice.
> Currently the server is running small business server so I cannot
> create a trust to the storage servers domain.
> I created a mapped drive when logged in as the sql service account but
> this did not work.
> I was thinking about making a job that used the net use command to
> create the drive then running the backup script.
> I was wondering if anyone else had a better solution for crossing the
> domain security barrier.
> Thanks!
>
|||Create a share on the remote server and then use unc path for the
destination.
e.g.
backup database <db>
to disk='\\remoteserver\shared\db.bak'
-oj

> <outoftherealm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143475970.853389.244620@.u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
>
|||If you dont want to create a permanent share then you can use
net use <drive name>: <unc path> user:<user name with doamin> password
ex
net use P: \\10.10.10.10\folder /user:mydomain\username password.
Run this job as first step and if is success take backup to mapped
drive.
Regards
Amish Shah

Backup to Storage Server in another domain.

I am attempting to use enterprise manager to backup databases to a
storage server in another domain and was looking for some advice.
Currently the server is running small business server so I cannot
create a trust to the storage servers domain.
I created a mapped drive when logged in as the sql service account but
this did not work.
I was thinking about making a job that used the net use command to
create the drive then running the backup script.
I was wondering if anyone else had a better solution for crossing the
domain security barrier.
Thanks!Hi
I have my doubt that you have by EM backup database on remote computer.
BACKUP DATABASE db TO DISK =
N'\\ServerName\backup\db.BAK'
exec SRV003.master.dbo.sp_executesql N'BACKUP DATABASE pubs
to DISK =''d:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL$BELLTOWER\BACKUP\testback.bak'''
exec SRV003.master.dbo.sp_executesql
N'BACKUP DATABASE pubs to testback'
<outoftherealm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143475970.853389.244620@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>I am attempting to use enterprise manager to backup databases to a
> storage server in another domain and was looking for some advice.
> Currently the server is running small business server so I cannot
> create a trust to the storage servers domain.
> I created a mapped drive when logged in as the sql service account but
> this did not work.
> I was thinking about making a job that used the net use command to
> create the drive then running the backup script.
> I was wondering if anyone else had a better solution for crossing the
> domain security barrier.
> Thanks!
>|||Create a share on the remote server and then use unc path for the
destination.
e.g.
backup database <db>
to disk='\\remoteserver\shared\db.bak'
-oj

> <outoftherealm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143475970.853389.244620@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>|||If you dont want to create a permanent share then you can use
net use <drive name>: <unc path> user:<user name with doamin> password
ex
net use P: \\10.10.10.10\folder /user:mydomain\username password.
Run this job as first step and if is success take backup to mapped
drive.
Regards
Amish Shah|||how to set username and password
when server run with local system service?
mydomain\username and password don't work or
server is in workgroup (not in domain)
Thanks
"amish" <shahamishm@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143559961.804068.209860@.t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If you dont want to create a permanent share then you can use
> net use <drive name>: <unc path> user:<user name with doamin> password
> ex
> net use P: \\10.10.10.10\folder /user:mydomain\username password.
> Run this job as first step and if is success take backup to mapped
> drive.
>
> Regards
> Amish Shah
>

Backup to Storage Server in another domain.

I am attempting to use enterprise manager to backup databases to a
storage server in another domain and was looking for some advice.
Currently the server is running small business server so I cannot
create a trust to the storage servers domain.
I created a mapped drive when logged in as the sql service account but
this did not work.
I was thinking about making a job that used the net use command to
create the drive then running the backup script.
I was wondering if anyone else had a better solution for crossing the
domain security barrier.
Thanks!Hi
I have my doubt that you have by EM backup database on remote computer.
BACKUP DATABASE db TO DISK = N'\\ServerName\backup\db.BAK'
--
exec SRV003.master.dbo.sp_executesql N'BACKUP DATABASE pubs
to DISK =''d:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL$BELLTOWER\BACKUP\testback.bak'''
exec SRV003.master.dbo.sp_executesql
N'BACKUP DATABASE pubs to testback'
<outoftherealm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143475970.853389.244620@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>I am attempting to use enterprise manager to backup databases to a
> storage server in another domain and was looking for some advice.
> Currently the server is running small business server so I cannot
> create a trust to the storage servers domain.
> I created a mapped drive when logged in as the sql service account but
> this did not work.
> I was thinking about making a job that used the net use command to
> create the drive then running the backup script.
> I was wondering if anyone else had a better solution for crossing the
> domain security barrier.
> Thanks!
>|||Create a share on the remote server and then use unc path for the
destination.
e.g.
backup database <db>
to disk='\\remoteserver\shared\db.bak'
-oj
> <outoftherealm@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143475970.853389.244620@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>I am attempting to use enterprise manager to backup databases to a
>> storage server in another domain and was looking for some advice.
>> Currently the server is running small business server so I cannot
>> create a trust to the storage servers domain.
>> I created a mapped drive when logged in as the sql service account but
>> this did not work.
>> I was thinking about making a job that used the net use command to
>> create the drive then running the backup script.
>> I was wondering if anyone else had a better solution for crossing the
>> domain security barrier.
>> Thanks!
>|||If you dont want to create a permanent share then you can use
net use <drive name>: <unc path> user:<user name with doamin> password
ex
net use P: \\10.10.10.10\folder /user:mydomain\username password.
Run this job as first step and if is success take backup to mapped
drive.
Regards
Amish Shah|||how to set username and password
when server run with local system service?
mydomain\username and password don't work or
server is in workgroup (not in domain)
Thanks
"amish" <shahamishm@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143559961.804068.209860@.t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If you dont want to create a permanent share then you can use
> net use <drive name>: <unc path> user:<user name with doamin> password
> ex
> net use P: \\10.10.10.10\folder /user:mydomain\username password.
> Run this job as first step and if is success take backup to mapped
> drive.
>
> Regards
> Amish Shah
>